Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 851 | control, N = 431 | treatment, N = 421 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 85 | 50.51 ± 13.04 (25 - 74) | 50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74) | 50.74 ± 12.94 (28 - 73) | 0.873 |
gender | 85 | 0.519 | |||
f | 60 (71%) | 29 (67%) | 31 (74%) | ||
m | 25 (29%) | 14 (33%) | 11 (26%) | ||
occupation | 85 | 0.894 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.4%) | 2 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 9 (11%) | 5 (12%) | 4 (9.5%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (7.1%) | 3 (7.0%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
other | 2 (2.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.8%) | ||
part_time | 15 (18%) | 7 (16%) | 8 (19%) | ||
retired | 21 (25%) | 10 (23%) | 11 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (4.7%) | 2 (4.7%) | 2 (4.8%) | ||
student | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
unemploy | 23 (27%) | 13 (30%) | 10 (24%) | ||
marital | 85 | 0.692 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
divore | 10 (12%) | 7 (16%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
in_relationship | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
married | 21 (25%) | 10 (23%) | 11 (26%) | ||
none | 46 (54%) | 22 (51%) | 24 (57%) | ||
seperation | 3 (3.5%) | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
widow | 3 (3.5%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (4.8%) | ||
edu | 85 | 0.843 | |||
bachelor | 24 (28%) | 9 (21%) | 15 (36%) | ||
diploma | 18 (21%) | 11 (26%) | 7 (17%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (3.5%) | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
postgraduate | 7 (8.2%) | 4 (9.3%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
primary | 5 (5.9%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 10 (12%) | 6 (14%) | 4 (9.5%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 16 (19%) | 8 (19%) | 8 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
fam_income | 85 | 0.908 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 5 (5.9%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (5.9%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
20001_above | 14 (16%) | 7 (16%) | 7 (17%) | ||
2001_4000 | 13 (15%) | 9 (21%) | 4 (9.5%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (12%) | 4 (9.3%) | 6 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 9 (11%) | 5 (12%) | 4 (9.5%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (8.2%) | 3 (7.0%) | 4 (9.5%) | ||
below_2000 | 12 (14%) | 6 (14%) | 6 (14%) | ||
medication | 85 | 75 (88%) | 39 (91%) | 36 (86%) | 0.520 |
onset_duration | 85 | 15.28 ± 10.96 (0 - 56) | 16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56) | 13.88 ± 9.66 (0 - 35) | 0.246 |
onset_age | 85 | 35.23 ± 14.02 (14 - 64) | 33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58) | 36.86 ± 15.13 (15 - 64) | 0.291 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 851 | control, N = 431 | treatment, N = 421 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 85 | 3.08 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | 0.934 |
recovery_stage_b | 85 | 18.01 ± 2.65 (9 - 23) | 17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23) | 18.17 ± 2.55 (13 - 23) | 0.597 |
ras_confidence | 85 | 30.19 ± 4.75 (19 - 43) | 29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40) | 30.76 ± 5.17 (20 - 43) | 0.274 |
ras_willingness | 85 | 12.24 ± 1.95 (7 - 15) | 12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15) | 12.40 ± 2.04 (7 - 15) | 0.432 |
ras_goal | 85 | 17.60 ± 2.86 (12 - 24) | 17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24) | 17.71 ± 2.94 (12 - 24) | 0.718 |
ras_reliance | 85 | 13.06 ± 2.80 (8 - 20) | 12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18) | 13.14 ± 3.00 (8 - 20) | 0.786 |
ras_domination | 85 | 9.93 ± 2.34 (3 - 15) | 10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15) | 9.43 ± 2.33 (3 - 14) | 0.050 |
symptom | 85 | 30.42 ± 9.81 (14 - 56) | 31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55) | 28.86 ± 9.57 (15 - 56) | 0.147 |
slof_work | 85 | 22.84 ± 4.88 (10 - 30) | 22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30) | 23.14 ± 5.31 (10 - 30) | 0.569 |
slof_relationship | 85 | 25.82 ± 5.92 (11 - 35) | 25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35) | 26.55 ± 5.87 (11 - 35) | 0.268 |
satisfaction | 85 | 20.53 ± 6.71 (5 - 32) | 18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29) | 22.24 ± 6.57 (5 - 32) | 0.019 |
mhc_emotional | 85 | 11.20 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17) | 11.74 ± 4.03 (4 - 18) | 0.195 |
mhc_social | 85 | 15.04 ± 5.26 (6 - 30) | 15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30) | 14.93 ± 5.33 (6 - 26) | 0.855 |
mhc_psychological | 85 | 22.15 ± 5.89 (6 - 36) | 21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36) | 22.76 ± 6.34 (6 - 36) | 0.349 |
resilisnce | 85 | 16.67 ± 4.49 (6 - 27) | 16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24) | 17.07 ± 4.83 (7 - 27) | 0.420 |
social_provision | 85 | 13.71 ± 2.86 (5 - 20) | 13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20) | 14.17 ± 3.26 (5 - 20) | 0.143 |
els_value_living | 85 | 17.13 ± 2.91 (5 - 25) | 16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22) | 17.76 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 0.047 |
els_life_fulfill | 85 | 12.66 ± 3.29 (4 - 20) | 11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17) | 13.81 ± 3.16 (4 - 20) | 0.001 |
els | 85 | 29.79 ± 5.61 (9 - 45) | 28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36) | 31.57 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 0.003 |
social_connect | 85 | 26.91 ± 9.22 (8 - 48) | 27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45) | 25.95 ± 10.14 (8 - 48) | 0.349 |
shs_agency | 85 | 14.58 ± 4.77 (3 - 24) | 13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21) | 15.43 ± 5.10 (3 - 24) | 0.104 |
shs_pathway | 85 | 16.56 ± 3.90 (4 - 24) | 16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24) | 17.12 ± 4.06 (4 - 23) | 0.197 |
shs | 85 | 31.14 ± 8.21 (7 - 47) | 29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45) | 32.55 ± 8.59 (7 - 47) | 0.119 |
esteem | 85 | 12.69 ± 1.53 (10 - 18) | 12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18) | 12.45 ± 1.45 (10 - 16) | 0.150 |
mlq_search | 85 | 15.01 ± 3.25 (3 - 21) | 14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21) | 15.17 ± 3.46 (3 - 21) | 0.667 |
mlq_presence | 85 | 13.54 ± 4.10 (3 - 21) | 13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21) | 13.76 ± 4.53 (3 - 21) | 0.627 |
mlq | 85 | 28.55 ± 6.53 (6 - 42) | 28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40) | 28.93 ± 7.21 (6 - 42) | 0.603 |
empower | 85 | 19.47 ± 4.05 (6 - 28) | 18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24) | 20.00 ± 4.54 (6 - 28) | 0.236 |
ismi_resistance | 85 | 14.78 ± 2.61 (5 - 20) | 14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19) | 15.14 ± 2.97 (5 - 20) | 0.202 |
ismi_discrimation | 85 | 11.46 ± 3.14 (5 - 19) | 12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19) | 10.48 ± 3.16 (5 - 19) | 0.004 |
sss_affective | 85 | 10.04 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 9.50 ± 3.92 (3 - 18) | 0.195 |
sss_behavior | 85 | 9.67 ± 3.98 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18) | 8.93 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 0.089 |
sss_cognitive | 85 | 8.24 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 7.81 ± 3.59 (3 - 18) | 0.308 |
sss | 85 | 27.94 ± 10.68 (9 - 54) | 29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54) | 26.24 ± 10.72 (9 - 54) | 0.147 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.09 | 0.181 | 2.74, 3.45 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.022 | 0.257 | -0.526, 0.482 | 0.933 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.223 | 0.273 | -0.312, 0.758 | 0.417 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.233 | 0.384 | -0.519, 0.985 | 0.546 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.420 | 17.0, 18.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.306 | 0.598 | -0.865, 1.48 | 0.609 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.252 | 0.594 | -1.42, 0.913 | 0.673 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.900 | 0.834 | -0.735, 2.53 | 0.285 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.758 | 28.1, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.13 | 1.078 | -0.979, 3.25 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.349 | 0.826 | -1.27, 1.97 | 0.674 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.11 | 1.157 | -1.16, 3.38 | 0.343 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.304 | 11.5, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.335 | 0.432 | -0.513, 1.18 | 0.440 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.691 | 0.306 | -1.29, -0.091 | 0.028 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.774 | 0.429 | -0.067, 1.61 | 0.077 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.464 | 16.6, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.226 | 0.660 | -1.07, 1.52 | 0.733 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.945 | 0.535 | -1.99, 0.104 | 0.083 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.85 | 0.750 | 0.381, 3.32 | 0.017 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.418 | 12.2, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.166 | 0.595 | -1.00, 1.33 | 0.781 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.461 | 0.425 | -0.372, 1.29 | 0.283 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.889 | 0.595 | -0.277, 2.06 | 0.141 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.348 | 9.74, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.990 | 0.495 | -1.96, -0.020 | 0.048 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.544 | 0.460 | -1.45, 0.359 | 0.243 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.68 | 0.646 | 0.413, 2.94 | 0.012 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 32.0 | 1.491 | 29.0, 34.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.10 | 2.122 | -7.25, 1.06 | 0.148 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.248 | 1.203 | -2.11, 2.61 | 0.838 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.81 | 1.684 | -5.11, 1.49 | 0.288 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.749 | 21.1, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.608 | 1.065 | -1.48, 2.70 | 0.570 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.794 | 0.636 | -2.04, 0.452 | 0.218 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.179 | 0.890 | -1.57, 1.92 | 0.842 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.1 | 0.893 | 23.4, 26.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.43 | 1.270 | -1.06, 3.92 | 0.263 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.05 | 0.887 | -2.79, 0.692 | 0.243 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.29 | 1.243 | -1.15, 3.72 | 0.306 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 1.038 | 16.8, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.38 | 1.477 | 0.483, 6.27 | 0.024 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.895 | 1.236 | -1.53, 3.32 | 0.472 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.198 | 1.732 | -3.59, 3.20 | 0.909 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.059 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.570 | 9.56, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.06 | 0.811 | -0.526, 2.65 | 0.193 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.355 | 0.548 | -0.718, 1.43 | 0.520 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.518 | 0.767 | -2.02, 0.985 | 0.503 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.841 | 13.5, 16.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.211 | 1.197 | -2.56, 2.14 | 0.860 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.10 | 0.952 | -0.762, 2.97 | 0.252 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.889 | 1.334 | -3.50, 1.73 | 0.508 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.958 | 19.7, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.20 | 1.364 | -1.47, 3.88 | 0.379 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.764 | 1.031 | -1.26, 2.78 | 0.462 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.451 | 1.444 | -3.28, 2.38 | 0.756 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.675 | 15.0, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.792 | 0.961 | -1.09, 2.68 | 0.411 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.017 | 0.744 | -1.44, 1.48 | 0.981 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.16 | 1.042 | -0.883, 3.20 | 0.271 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.443 | 12.4, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.911 | 0.631 | -0.325, 2.15 | 0.152 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.850 | 0.542 | -1.91, 0.211 | 0.122 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.997 | 0.759 | -0.491, 2.48 | 0.194 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.5 | 0.457 | 15.6, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.25 | 0.650 | -0.023, 2.52 | 0.057 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.100 | 0.496 | -0.872, 1.07 | 0.842 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.359 | 0.694 | -1.00, 1.72 | 0.608 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.053 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.5 | 0.467 | 10.6, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.27 | 0.664 | 0.973, 3.58 | 0.001 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.968 | 0.480 | 0.028, 1.91 | 0.049 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.646 | 0.672 | -1.96, 0.671 | 0.341 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.112 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.0 | 0.837 | 26.4, 29.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.52 | 1.191 | 1.19, 5.86 | 0.004 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.826 | -0.598, 2.64 | 0.222 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.221 | 1.156 | -2.49, 2.04 | 0.849 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.096 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 1.429 | 25.0, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.88 | 2.033 | -5.87, 2.10 | 0.356 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.505 | 1.233 | -1.91, 2.92 | 0.684 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.87 | 1.727 | -5.25, 1.51 | 0.284 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.730 | 12.3, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.68 | 1.039 | -0.352, 3.72 | 0.108 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.280 | 0.782 | -1.25, 1.81 | 0.722 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.355 | 1.095 | -1.79, 2.50 | 0.747 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.590 | 14.9, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.10 | 0.840 | -0.550, 2.74 | 0.195 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.176 | 0.618 | -1.04, 1.39 | 0.777 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.250 | 0.866 | -1.95, 1.45 | 0.774 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.243 | 27.3, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.78 | 1.769 | -0.686, 6.25 | 0.119 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.448 | 1.286 | -2.07, 2.97 | 0.729 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.124 | 1.801 | -3.41, 3.65 | 0.945 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.215 | 12.5, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.478 | 0.307 | -1.08, 0.123 | 0.122 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.036 | 0.328 | -0.607, 0.679 | 0.914 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.280 | 0.461 | -0.623, 1.18 | 0.546 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.499 | 13.9, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.306 | 0.710 | -1.09, 1.70 | 0.667 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.329 | 0.602 | -1.51, 0.852 | 0.587 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.034 | 0.844 | -1.69, 1.62 | 0.968 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.626 | 12.1, 14.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.436 | 0.891 | -1.31, 2.18 | 0.625 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.007 | 0.730 | -1.44, 1.42 | 0.992 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.022 | 1.023 | -1.98, 2.03 | 0.983 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.011 | 26.2, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.743 | 1.438 | -2.08, 3.56 | 0.607 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.347 | 1.180 | -2.66, 1.97 | 0.770 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.000 | 1.654 | -3.24, 3.24 | 1.00 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.626 | 17.7, 20.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 0.891 | -0.699, 2.79 | 0.243 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.089 | 0.588 | -1.06, 1.24 | 0.881 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.466 | 0.823 | -2.08, 1.15 | 0.574 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.384 | 13.7, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.724 | 0.547 | -0.348, 1.80 | 0.188 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.075 | 0.524 | -0.951, 1.10 | 0.886 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.008 | 0.735 | -1.43, 1.45 | 0.991 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.472 | 11.5, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.94 | 0.672 | -3.26, -0.626 | 0.005 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.662 | 0.506 | -1.65, 0.330 | 0.196 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.882 | 0.709 | -0.507, 2.27 | 0.219 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.071 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.555 | 9.47, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.06 | 0.789 | -2.60, 0.488 | 0.183 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.093 | 0.540 | -0.964, 1.15 | 0.863 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.18 | 0.756 | -2.66, 0.304 | 0.125 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.583 | 9.25, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.47 | 0.829 | -3.09, 0.159 | 0.080 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.305 | 0.617 | -1.51, 0.905 | 0.624 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.450 | 0.865 | -2.14, 1.25 | 0.605 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.65 | 0.571 | 7.53, 9.77 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.842 | 0.813 | -2.44, 0.752 | 0.303 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.946 | 0.523 | -0.079, 1.97 | 0.077 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.81 | 0.732 | -3.25, -0.377 | 0.017 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.593 | 26.5, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.37 | 2.266 | -7.81, 1.07 | 0.141 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.816 | 1.422 | -1.97, 3.60 | 0.569 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.49 | 1.991 | -7.39, 0.414 | 0.086 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.45], t(124) = 17.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48], t(124) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.76], t(124) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.98], t(124) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.04, 18.68], t(124) = 42.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.48], t(124) = 0.51, p = 0.608; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.91], t(124) = -0.42, p = 0.671; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.53], t(124) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.92])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.14, 31.11], t(124) = 39.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.25], t(124) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.97], t(124) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-1.16, 3.38], t(124) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.47, 12.67], t(124) = 39.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(124) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.09], t(124) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.61], t(124) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.58, 18.40], t(124) = 37.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.52], t(124) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.10], t(124) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.85, 95% CI [0.38, 3.32], t(124) = 2.47, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.12, 1.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.16, 13.80], t(124) = 31.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.33], t(124) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.29], t(124) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.28, 2.06], t(124) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(124) = 29.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-1.96, -0.02], t(124) = -2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.86, -8.80e-03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.36], t(124) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [0.41, 2.94], t(124) = 2.60, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.18, 1.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.03, 34.88], t(124) = 21.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.10, 95% CI [-7.25, 1.06], t(124) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.61], t(124) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-5.11, 1.49], t(124) = -1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.07, 24.00], t(124) = 30.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.70], t(124) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.04, 0.45], t(124) = -1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.92], t(124) = 0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.37, 26.87], t(124) = 28.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.92], t(124) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.69], t(124) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-1.15, 3.72], t(124) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.83, 20.90], t(124) = 18.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.38, 95% CI [0.48, 6.27], t(124) = 2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.07, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-1.53, 3.32], t(124) = 0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-3.59, 3.20], t(124) = -0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(124) = 18.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.65], t(124) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.43], t(124) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.99], t(124) = -0.68, p = 0.500; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.49, 16.79], t(124) = 17.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.56, 2.14], t(124) = -0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.97], t(124) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-3.50, 1.73], t(124) = -0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.68, 23.44], t(124) = 22.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.47, 3.88], t(124) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.78], t(124) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-3.28, 2.38], t(124) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.96, 17.60], t(124) = 24.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.09, 2.68], t(124) = 0.82, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.48], t(124) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 3.94e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.20], t(124) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.12], t(124) = 29.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.15], t(124) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.21], t(124) = -1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.48], t(124) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.62, 17.41], t(124) = 36.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.02, 2.52], t(124) = 1.92, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-7.57e-03, 0.82])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.07], t(124) = 0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.72], t(124) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.62, 12.45], t(124) = 24.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [0.97, 3.58], t(124) = 3.42, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.70, 95% CI [0.30, 1.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [0.03, 1.91], t(124) = 2.02, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [8.60e-03, 0.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.67], t(124) = -0.96, p = 0.336; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.41, 29.69], t(124) = 33.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.52, 95% CI [1.19, 5.86], t(124) = 2.96, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.21, 1.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.64], t(124) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.04], t(124) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.04, 30.64], t(124) = 19.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.88, 95% CI [-5.87, 2.10], t(124) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.92], t(124) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.87, 95% CI [-5.25, 1.51], t(124) = -1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.31, 15.18], t(124) = 18.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [-0.35, 3.72], t(124) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.81], t(124) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.50], t(124) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.87, 17.18], t(124) = 27.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.74], t(124) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.39], t(124) = 0.29, p = 0.776; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.95, 1.45], t(124) = -0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.33, 32.20], t(124) = 23.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.78, 95% CI [-0.69, 6.25], t(124) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-2.07, 2.97], t(124) = 0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-3.41, 3.65], t(124) = 0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.51, 13.35], t(124) = 60.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.12], t(124) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.68], t(124) = 0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.18], t(124) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.84])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.88, 15.84], t(124) = 29.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.70], t(124) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.85], t(124) = -0.55, p = 0.585; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.62], t(124) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.10, 14.55], t(124) = 21.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.18], t(124) = 0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.22e-03, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.42], t(124) = -9.89e-03, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -1.78e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.98, 2.03], t(124) = 0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = 5.49e-03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.21, 30.17], t(124) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-2.08, 3.56], t(124) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.66, 1.97], t(124) = -0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.90e-05, 95% CI [-3.24, 3.24], t(124) = -1.15e-05, p > .999; Std. beta = -2.87e-06, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.73, 20.18], t(124) = 30.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.79], t(124) = 1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.24], t(124) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.15], t(124) = -0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.67, 15.17], t(124) = 37.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.80], t(124) = 1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.10], t(124) = 0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 8.06e-03, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.45], t(124) = 0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = 3.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.49, 13.34], t(124) = 26.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.94, 95% CI [-3.26, -0.63], t(124) = -2.89, p = 0.004; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.02, -0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.33], t(124) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.27], t(124) = 1.24, p = 0.213; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.47, 11.65], t(124) = 19.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.49], t(124) = -1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.15], t(124) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.30], t(124) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.25, 11.54], t(124) = 17.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-3.09, 0.16], t(124) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.91], t(124) = -0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.14, 1.25], t(124) = -0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.53, 9.77], t(124) = 15.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.75], t(124) = -1.04, p = 0.301; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.97], t(124) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.38], t(124) = -2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.87, -0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.48, 32.73], t(124) = 18.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.37, 95% CI [-7.81, 1.07], t(124) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.97, 3.60], t(124) = 0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.49, 95% CI [-7.39, 0.41], t(124) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 414.614 | 423.216 | -204.307 | 408.614 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 416.979 | 434.184 | -202.489 | 404.979 | 3.635 | 3 | 0.304 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 629.087 | 637.690 | -311.544 | 623.087 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 632.470 | 649.675 | -310.235 | 620.470 | 2.617 | 3 | 0.454 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 766.475 | 775.078 | -380.238 | 760.475 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 766.974 | 784.180 | -377.487 | 754.974 | 5.501 | 3 | 0.139 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 523.915 | 532.518 | -258.958 | 517.915 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 523.114 | 540.319 | -255.557 | 511.114 | 6.801 | 3 | 0.079 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 645.187 | 653.789 | -319.593 | 639.187 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 643.678 | 660.884 | -315.839 | 631.678 | 7.508 | 3 | 0.057 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 612.569 | 621.172 | -303.285 | 606.569 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 606.697 | 623.903 | -297.349 | 594.697 | 11.872 | 3 | 0.008 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 581.517 | 590.120 | -287.759 | 575.517 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 579.049 | 596.254 | -283.524 | 567.049 | 8.468 | 3 | 0.037 |
symptom | null | 3 | 916.964 | 925.567 | -455.482 | 910.964 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 918.087 | 935.293 | -453.044 | 906.087 | 4.877 | 3 | 0.181 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 740.327 | 748.930 | -367.164 | 734.327 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 743.365 | 760.570 | -365.682 | 731.365 | 2.963 | 3 | 0.397 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 799.808 | 808.411 | -396.904 | 793.808 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 802.156 | 819.361 | -395.078 | 790.156 | 3.652 | 3 | 0.302 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 856.225 | 864.828 | -425.113 | 850.225 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 855.627 | 872.832 | -421.813 | 843.627 | 6.598 | 3 | 0.086 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 678.715 | 687.318 | -336.358 | 672.715 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 682.784 | 699.990 | -335.392 | 670.784 | 1.931 | 3 | 0.587 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 792.701 | 801.304 | -393.351 | 786.701 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 797.099 | 814.305 | -392.550 | 785.099 | 1.602 | 3 | 0.659 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 822.373 | 830.975 | -408.186 | 816.373 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 826.996 | 844.202 | -407.498 | 814.996 | 1.376 | 3 | 0.711 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 736.037 | 744.639 | -365.018 | 730.037 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 737.833 | 755.038 | -362.916 | 725.833 | 4.204 | 3 | 0.240 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 637.031 | 645.634 | -315.516 | 631.031 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 636.325 | 653.530 | -312.163 | 624.325 | 6.706 | 3 | 0.082 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 634.756 | 643.358 | -314.378 | 628.756 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 634.965 | 652.170 | -311.483 | 622.965 | 5.791 | 3 | 0.122 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 645.276 | 653.879 | -319.638 | 639.276 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 636.347 | 653.552 | -312.173 | 624.347 | 14.930 | 3 | 0.002 |
els | null | 3 | 790.286 | 798.889 | -392.143 | 784.286 | |||
els | random | 6 | 784.807 | 802.012 | -386.403 | 772.807 | 11.480 | 3 | 0.009 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 909.756 | 918.359 | -451.878 | 903.756 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 912.762 | 929.967 | -450.381 | 900.762 | 2.994 | 3 | 0.393 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 754.036 | 762.639 | -374.018 | 748.036 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 755.882 | 773.087 | -371.941 | 743.882 | 4.155 | 3 | 0.245 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 694.520 | 703.122 | -344.260 | 688.520 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 698.762 | 715.967 | -343.381 | 686.762 | 1.758 | 3 | 0.624 |
shs | null | 3 | 888.627 | 897.229 | -441.313 | 882.627 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 891.473 | 908.678 | -439.736 | 879.473 | 3.154 | 3 | 0.368 |
esteem | null | 3 | 460.118 | 468.721 | -227.059 | 454.118 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 463.039 | 480.244 | -225.519 | 451.039 | 3.080 | 3 | 0.380 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 661.152 | 669.754 | -327.576 | 655.152 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 666.261 | 683.466 | -327.130 | 654.261 | 0.891 | 3 | 0.828 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 716.836 | 725.438 | -355.418 | 710.836 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 722.547 | 739.753 | -355.274 | 710.547 | 0.288 | 3 | 0.962 |
mlq | null | 3 | 841.682 | 850.285 | -417.841 | 835.682 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 847.194 | 864.399 | -417.597 | 835.194 | 0.488 | 3 | 0.921 |
empower | null | 3 | 700.819 | 709.421 | -347.409 | 694.819 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 705.203 | 722.409 | -346.602 | 693.203 | 1.615 | 3 | 0.656 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 603.231 | 611.834 | -298.615 | 597.231 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 607.008 | 624.213 | -297.504 | 595.008 | 2.223 | 3 | 0.527 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 645.467 | 654.069 | -319.733 | 639.467 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 642.659 | 659.864 | -315.329 | 630.659 | 8.808 | 3 | 0.032 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 678.269 | 686.872 | -336.134 | 672.269 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 676.633 | 693.838 | -332.316 | 664.633 | 7.636 | 3 | 0.054 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 696.402 | 705.005 | -345.201 | 690.402 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 696.471 | 713.676 | -342.235 | 684.471 | 5.932 | 3 | 0.115 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 682.061 | 690.664 | -338.031 | 676.061 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 679.297 | 696.502 | -333.648 | 667.297 | 8.764 | 3 | 0.033 |
sss | null | 3 | 945.718 | 954.320 | -469.859 | 939.718 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 943.778 | 960.983 | -465.889 | 931.778 | 7.939 | 3 | 0.047 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 43 | 3.09 ± 1.19 | 42 | 3.07 ± 1.19 | 0.933 | 0.022 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 22 | 3.32 ± 1.17 | -0.224 | 23 | 3.53 ± 1.17 | -0.458 | 0.546 | -0.212 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 43 | 17.86 ± 2.75 | 42 | 18.17 ± 2.75 | 0.609 | -0.143 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 22 | 17.61 ± 2.67 | 0.118 | 23 | 18.81 ± 2.67 | -0.303 | 0.132 | -0.565 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 43 | 29.63 ± 4.97 | 42 | 30.76 ± 4.97 | 0.295 | -0.397 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 22 | 29.98 ± 4.41 | -0.122 | 23 | 32.22 ± 4.45 | -0.510 | 0.092 | -0.784 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 43 | 12.07 ± 1.99 | 42 | 12.40 ± 1.99 | 0.440 | -0.318 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 22 | 11.38 ± 1.73 | 0.657 | 23 | 12.49 ± 1.75 | -0.079 | 0.034 | -1.054 |
ras_goal | 1st | 43 | 17.49 ± 3.04 | 42 | 17.71 ± 3.04 | 0.733 | -0.121 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 22 | 16.54 ± 2.75 | 0.507 | 23 | 18.62 ± 2.77 | -0.487 | 0.013 | -1.116 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 43 | 12.98 ± 2.74 | 42 | 13.14 ± 2.74 | 0.781 | -0.114 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 22 | 13.44 ± 2.38 | -0.315 | 23 | 14.49 ± 2.41 | -0.924 | 0.142 | -0.722 |
ras_domination | 1st | 43 | 10.42 ± 2.28 | 42 | 9.43 ± 2.28 | 0.048 | 0.606 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 22 | 9.87 ± 2.16 | 0.333 | 23 | 10.56 ± 2.17 | -0.695 | 0.288 | -0.422 |
symptom | 1st | 43 | 31.95 ± 9.78 | 42 | 28.86 ± 9.78 | 0.148 | 0.760 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 22 | 32.20 ± 8.00 | -0.061 | 23 | 27.30 ± 8.14 | 0.383 | 0.044 | 1.203 |
slof_work | 1st | 43 | 22.53 ± 4.91 | 42 | 23.14 ± 4.91 | 0.570 | -0.281 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 22 | 21.74 ± 4.06 | 0.368 | 23 | 22.53 ± 4.13 | 0.285 | 0.521 | -0.364 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 43 | 25.12 ± 5.85 | 42 | 26.55 ± 5.85 | 0.263 | -0.470 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 22 | 24.07 ± 5.05 | 0.344 | 23 | 26.79 ± 5.11 | -0.079 | 0.075 | -0.893 |
satisfaction | 1st | 43 | 18.86 ± 6.81 | 42 | 22.24 ± 6.81 | 0.024 | -0.782 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 22 | 19.76 ± 6.22 | -0.207 | 23 | 22.93 ± 6.26 | -0.161 | 0.090 | -0.737 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 43 | 10.67 ± 3.74 | 42 | 11.74 ± 3.74 | 0.193 | -0.567 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 22 | 11.03 ± 3.19 | -0.189 | 23 | 11.58 ± 3.24 | 0.087 | 0.570 | -0.291 |
mhc_social | 1st | 43 | 15.14 ± 5.52 | 42 | 14.93 ± 5.52 | 0.860 | 0.064 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 22 | 16.24 ± 4.95 | -0.334 | 23 | 15.14 ± 5.00 | -0.065 | 0.460 | 0.333 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 43 | 21.56 ± 6.29 | 42 | 22.76 ± 6.29 | 0.379 | -0.338 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 22 | 22.32 ± 5.55 | -0.214 | 23 | 23.07 ± 5.61 | -0.088 | 0.652 | -0.211 |
resilisnce | 1st | 43 | 16.28 ± 4.43 | 42 | 17.07 ± 4.43 | 0.411 | -0.308 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 22 | 16.30 ± 3.94 | -0.007 | 23 | 18.25 ± 3.98 | -0.457 | 0.101 | -0.758 |
social_provision | 1st | 43 | 13.26 ± 2.91 | 42 | 14.17 ± 2.91 | 0.152 | -0.480 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 22 | 12.41 ± 2.68 | 0.448 | 23 | 14.31 ± 2.70 | -0.077 | 0.019 | -1.005 |
els_value_living | 1st | 43 | 16.51 ± 3.00 | 42 | 17.76 ± 3.00 | 0.057 | -0.730 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 22 | 16.61 ± 2.65 | -0.058 | 23 | 18.22 ± 2.68 | -0.267 | 0.045 | -0.939 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 43 | 11.53 ± 3.06 | 42 | 13.81 ± 3.06 | 0.001 | -1.378 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 22 | 12.50 ± 2.67 | -0.586 | 23 | 14.13 ± 2.70 | -0.195 | 0.044 | -0.986 |
els | 1st | 43 | 28.05 ± 5.49 | 42 | 31.57 ± 5.49 | 0.004 | -1.245 | ||
els | 2nd | 22 | 29.07 ± 4.73 | -0.360 | 23 | 32.37 ± 4.79 | -0.282 | 0.021 | -1.167 |
social_connect | 1st | 43 | 27.84 ± 9.37 | 42 | 25.95 ± 9.37 | 0.356 | 0.449 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 22 | 28.34 ± 7.79 | -0.120 | 23 | 24.59 ± 7.91 | 0.325 | 0.111 | 0.895 |
shs_agency | 1st | 43 | 13.74 ± 4.79 | 42 | 15.43 ± 4.79 | 0.108 | -0.624 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 22 | 14.02 ± 4.22 | -0.104 | 23 | 16.06 ± 4.27 | -0.235 | 0.110 | -0.755 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 43 | 16.02 ± 3.87 | 42 | 17.12 ± 3.87 | 0.195 | -0.514 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 22 | 16.20 ± 3.39 | -0.083 | 23 | 17.04 ± 3.43 | 0.035 | 0.407 | -0.397 |
shs | 1st | 43 | 29.77 ± 8.15 | 42 | 32.55 ± 8.15 | 0.119 | -0.628 | ||
shs | 2nd | 22 | 30.22 ± 7.12 | -0.101 | 23 | 33.12 ± 7.20 | -0.129 | 0.176 | -0.656 |
esteem | 1st | 43 | 12.93 ± 1.41 | 42 | 12.45 ± 1.41 | 0.122 | 0.399 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 22 | 12.97 ± 1.40 | -0.030 | 23 | 12.77 ± 1.40 | -0.264 | 0.637 | 0.165 |
mlq_search | 1st | 43 | 14.86 ± 3.27 | 42 | 15.17 ± 3.27 | 0.667 | -0.145 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 22 | 14.53 ± 3.00 | 0.156 | 23 | 14.80 ± 3.02 | 0.172 | 0.762 | -0.129 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 43 | 13.33 ± 4.11 | 42 | 13.76 ± 4.11 | 0.625 | -0.172 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 22 | 13.32 ± 3.72 | 0.003 | 23 | 13.78 ± 3.75 | -0.006 | 0.681 | -0.180 |
mlq | 1st | 43 | 28.19 ± 6.63 | 42 | 28.93 ± 6.63 | 0.607 | -0.181 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 22 | 27.84 ± 6.01 | 0.084 | 23 | 28.58 ± 6.06 | 0.084 | 0.681 | -0.181 |
empower | 1st | 43 | 18.95 ± 4.11 | 42 | 20.00 ± 4.11 | 0.243 | -0.521 | ||
empower | 2nd | 22 | 19.04 ± 3.49 | -0.044 | 23 | 19.62 ± 3.54 | 0.188 | 0.580 | -0.289 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 43 | 14.42 ± 2.52 | 42 | 15.14 ± 2.52 | 0.188 | -0.388 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 22 | 14.49 ± 2.41 | -0.040 | 23 | 15.23 ± 2.42 | -0.045 | 0.311 | -0.392 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 43 | 12.42 ± 3.10 | 42 | 10.48 ± 3.10 | 0.005 | 1.111 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 22 | 11.76 ± 2.73 | 0.379 | 23 | 10.70 ± 2.76 | -0.126 | 0.198 | 0.607 |
sss_affective | 1st | 43 | 10.56 ± 3.64 | 42 | 9.50 ± 3.64 | 0.183 | 0.572 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 22 | 10.65 ± 3.12 | -0.050 | 23 | 8.42 ± 3.16 | 0.586 | 0.018 | 1.209 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 43 | 10.40 ± 3.82 | 42 | 8.93 ± 3.82 | 0.080 | 0.689 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 22 | 10.09 ± 3.36 | 0.143 | 23 | 8.17 ± 3.40 | 0.354 | 0.059 | 0.900 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 43 | 8.65 ± 3.75 | 42 | 7.81 ± 3.75 | 0.303 | 0.472 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 22 | 9.60 ± 3.16 | -0.530 | 23 | 6.94 ± 3.21 | 0.485 | 0.006 | 1.488 |
sss | 1st | 43 | 29.60 ± 10.44 | 42 | 26.24 ± 10.44 | 0.141 | 0.695 | ||
sss | 2nd | 22 | 30.42 ± 8.75 | -0.168 | 23 | 23.57 ± 8.89 | 0.551 | 0.010 | 1.415 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(119.15) = -0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.49)
2st
t(125.29) = 0.60, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.90)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(114.16) = 0.51, p = 0.609, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.49)
2st
t(125.17) = 1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.78)
ras_confidence
1st
t(99.39) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.01 to 3.27)
2st
t(125.96) = 1.70, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.37 to 4.86)
ras_willingness
1st
t(96.56) = 0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.19)
2st
t(125.41) = 2.14, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.13)
ras_goal
1st
t(101.83) = 0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.53)
2st
t(125.97) = 2.52, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.12, 95% CI (0.45 to 3.70)
ras_reliance
1st
t(96.85) = 0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.35)
2st
t(125.51) = 1.48, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.47)
ras_domination
1st
t(109.47) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.97 to -0.01)
2st
t(125.36) = 1.07, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.97)
symptom
1st
t(91.11) = -1.46, p = 0.148, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-7.31 to 1.12)
2st
t(120.20) = -2.04, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-9.67 to -0.14)
slof_work
1st
t(92.11) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.72)
2st
t(121.83) = 0.64, p = 0.521, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.21)
slof_relationship
1st
t(96.14) = 1.13, p = 0.263, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.09 to 3.95)
2st
t(125.25) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.28 to 5.72)
satisfaction
1st
t(103.36) = 2.29, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.45 to 6.31)
2st
t(125.88) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.50 to 6.86)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(95.11) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.67)
2st
t(124.74) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.44)
mhc_social
1st
t(100.94) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.59 to 2.16)
2st
t(126.00) = -0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-4.04 to 1.84)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(98.87) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.50 to 3.91)
2st
t(125.91) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.54 to 4.05)
resilisnce
1st
t(99.82) = 0.82, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.70)
2st
t(125.98) = 1.65, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.38 to 4.29)
social_provision
1st
t(104.70) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.16)
2st
t(125.77) = 2.38, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.32 to 3.49)
els_value_living
1st
t(99.21) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.54)
2st
t(125.95) = 2.02, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.18)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(97.21) = 3.42, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.38, 95% CI (0.96 to 3.59)
2st
t(125.61) = 2.03, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.21)
els
1st
t(95.89) = 2.96, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (1.16 to 5.89)
2st
t(125.14) = 2.33, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (0.50 to 6.11)
social_connect
1st
t(92.46) = -0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-5.92 to 2.15)
2st
t(122.31) = -1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-8.39 to 0.88)
shs_agency
1st
t(98.69) = 1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.38 to 3.75)
2st
t(125.89) = 1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.47 to 4.55)
shs_pathway
1st
t(97.89) = 1.31, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.76)
2st
t(125.77) = 0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.86)
shs
1st
t(97.44) = 1.57, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.73 to 6.29)
2st
t(125.67) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.32 to 7.13)
esteem
1st
t(119.74) = -1.56, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.13)
2st
t(125.33) = -0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.63)
mlq_search
1st
t(104.06) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.71)
2st
t(125.82) = 0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.05)
mlq_presence
1st
t(102.32) = 0.49, p = 0.625, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.20)
2st
t(125.95) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.66)
mlq
1st
t(102.40) = 0.52, p = 0.607, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.59)
2st
t(125.94) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.82 to 4.30)
empower
1st
t(94.49) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.81)
2st
t(124.33) = 0.55, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.65)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(111.41) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.81)
2st
t(125.25) = 1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.16)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(98.73) = -2.89, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-3.28 to -0.61)
2st
t(125.90) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.56)
sss_affective
1st
t(95.48) = -1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.51)
2st
t(124.95) = -2.39, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.21, 95% CI (-4.09 to -0.38)
sss_behavior
1st
t(98.28) = -1.77, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-3.11 to 0.18)
2st
t(125.84) = -1.90, p = 0.059, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.91 to 0.08)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(93.81) = -1.04, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.46 to 0.77)
2st
t(123.78) = -2.80, p = 0.006, Cohen d = 1.49, 95% CI (-4.53 to -0.77)
sss
1st
t(93.23) = -1.49, p = 0.141, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-7.87 to 1.13)
2st
t(123.22) = -2.61, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 1.41, 95% CI (-12.06 to -1.65)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(62.25) = 1.68, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.00)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(58.69) = 1.10, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.83)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(50.61) = 1.79, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.18 to 3.09)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(49.25) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.69)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(51.82) = 1.72, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.97)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(49.39) = 3.23, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.51 to 2.19)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(55.87) = 2.49, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.05)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(46.70) = -1.32, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.94 to 0.82)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(47.16) = -0.98, p = 0.660, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.64)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(49.05) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.99)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(52.60) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.75 to 3.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(48.56) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.92)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(51.38) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.67 to 2.10)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(50.36) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.35)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(50.83) = 1.61, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.65)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(53.29) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.22)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(50.53) = 0.94, p = 0.706, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.44)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(49.56) = 0.68, p = 0.998, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.27)
els
1st vs 2st
t(48.93) = 0.98, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.43)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(47.32) = -1.13, p = 0.532, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.80 to 1.07)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(50.28) = 0.82, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.91 to 2.18)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(49.89) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.15)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(49.67) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.97 to 3.12)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(62.73) = 0.97, p = 0.671, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.97)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(52.96) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.83)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(52.07) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.46)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(52.11) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.68 to 1.99)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(48.27) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.79)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(56.99) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.12)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(50.29) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.22)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(48.74) = -2.04, p = 0.093, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.15 to -0.02)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(50.08) = -1.24, p = 0.441, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.47)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(47.95) = -1.68, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.17)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(47.68) = -1.91, p = 0.124, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.48 to 0.14)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(64.03) = 0.81, p = 0.841, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.77)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(60.13) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.95)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(51.28) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.02)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(49.79) = -2.25, p = 0.058, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-1.31 to -0.07)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(52.60) = -1.76, p = 0.170, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.13)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(49.94) = 1.08, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.32)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(57.04) = -1.17, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.38)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(47.00) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.67)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(47.51) = -1.25, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.08 to 0.49)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(49.57) = -1.18, p = 0.491, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.84 to 0.74)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(53.44) = 0.72, p = 0.950, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.60 to 3.39)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(49.04) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.46)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(52.11) = 1.15, p = 0.508, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.82 to 3.02)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(51.00) = 0.74, p = 0.929, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.84)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(51.51) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.52)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(54.20) = -1.56, p = 0.249, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.24)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(51.18) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.10)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(50.13) = 2.01, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.94)
els
1st vs 2st
t(49.44) = 1.23, p = 0.449, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.69)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(47.68) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.99)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(50.91) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.86)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(50.48) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.42)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(50.24) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.15 to 3.04)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(64.56) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.70)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(53.84) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.89)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(52.86) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.46)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(52.91) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.73 to 2.03)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(48.72) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.27)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(58.26) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.13)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(50.93) = -1.30, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.36)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(49.23) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.18)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(50.69) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.94)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(48.37) = 1.80, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.00)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(48.07) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.69)